Messages - wjm

When a DSLR auto-focuses it does so with the aperture wide open, regardless of the aperture to be used for the photo capture. Once focus is achieved, it stops down the aperture to the desired size and takes the picture.

This is probably the answer you were looking for.

For example, if you had an F2.8 lens and set the aperture for the photo to F16, the camera would auto-focus with the aperture at its maximum of F2.8, then close down to F16 for the shutter release. If the max aperture of the lens (or effective max aperture, if used in combination with teleconverters) is F8 or smaller, it will not auto-focus (except on some pro bodies and, hopefully, the 7DII).

This is my understanding, anyway. Take anonymous internet info for what it's worth!

You can also see it: Select F16 of F22. If you look into the lens you cannot see the aperture. If you press the shutter release and you can see de aperture close (and open). If you change the aperture while looking into the lens you won't see any difference. Only when pressing the shutter release.

If they did make it APS-H, It would have a APS-C crop mode if the mirror would clear EF-s lenses. Then it makes complete sense as you'll get alittle more coverage with EF lenses but not costing FF and crop mode when you need it. Win-Win.

I wonder if they can still do EF-s with APS-H. None of Canon's previous APS-H bodies were compatible with EF-s. To continue using EF lenses, the registration distance would have to be the same, and since no APS-H body to date was short-back compatible, I am willing to bet the mirror is too large. Maybe Canon could create some kind of folding mirror assembly to gain the necessary clearance...but that sounds like needless complexity, when there are a few good EF-s lenses for what they are, but none that compare to the IQ of a proper L-series lens.

I think the image circle of an EF-s lens is a bigger (unsolvable) problem the the miror size ...

I had a similar question a few years back and advice steered me towards the Epson R3000 over the Canon.I've been very happy with my R3000, excellent output, easy to use, no maintenance issues.Now I want a bigger one!

As others have said, buy cheap, pay more.Buy a little bigger and you may have lower operating costs, depending on what you want to do and how much printing you'll put thru it.

I have output from my R3000 that's better than most labs at a lower cost and I don't have to drive to pick up the results.if you intend to print enough, it's worth buying, especially when you can get it with some big rebates.

I don't think I won't print that much. Therefore the R3000 and Pixma-pro aren't a option for me. I know they are good. Just like the 5d mark III but a SL1/100d is also fine ...

If you buy it at B&H (free shipping), the Canon Pixma Pro-100 is just $98 after a $300 mail-in rebate. I had to get one last month, because my old Canon i9900 finally bit the dust after 10 years, and it only took a few weeks to receive the rebate. It includes the SG-201 Photo Paper Plus Semi-Gloss 13 x 19" (50 Sheets) at no additional cost, which is needed to receive the $300 rebate.

In printing, no need to do Canon, in fact some other printer manufacturers have more reputation in that domain. I have the Epson R3000 which prints beautifully and can only recommend it. Even more, it's wifi and prints to A3+ and rolls if you need to.

Resolution is really really good, size is very acceptable, has 7 colors and 2 blacks. Check its reviews online. On top of it I think the prices is very reasonabel as well.

I'm looking for a (A3) photo printer. I only want to use it for printing (color) photos (no other documents, I have a laser printer for that). Ofcourse the Canon Pixma-pro serie printers are very nice but a bit to expensive for me. Especially for my intended use: I just want to make some prints with (very) good quality at home for personal use. If I need the extra 'pro' quality for some reason, I can always go to a professional photolab.

Because I already own some/a lot of Canon gear I tend to buy a Canon printer (I know: this might not be the best reason, so I'm easy to convince otherwise). I'm considering the Canon iX 6550 or its succesor the Canon iX 6850. I read some (lab) reviews on the internet about these printers but I also looking for some 'user experiences'.

Are there some other (non Canon) printers to consider? Other things to keep in mind?

Probably their own 50 1.4 as they are about to lose out on a ton of money if they don't announce something before the Sigma is released.

The Sigma is indeed a amazing lens but there is a big price difference (about 950 versus about 399). Futhermore you also want to get the USB dock tot callibrate the Sigma. I expect Canon will suffer a drop in 50 1.2L sales ...

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

Not everyone wants to hike with a tripod. I do a lot of forest hikes where I go minimalistic on the equipment. Forest environments were tailored for UWA lenses. Having IS would be great.

Yes, and even if you can bring a tripod: if IS can do the job why not use it? It is both technology to help the photographer. I don't always know what position I get in and I don't want to carry a tripod all the time (IS is a lot easier).

Futhermore: IS is handy for (quick) 'creative' stills and video in general. Not all people want it but to say: "put it on a pod, end of story" ... no ...

Most wildlife filming is fake.... if you want real, be prepared to stare at the screen for 5 days to get that 30 seconds of interesting footage...

It's like my moose pictures.... go on a canoe trip and see no moose... another trip and no moose, another trip, no moose...(repeat a few dozen times).... go on a canoe trip, see a moose, take lots of pictures.... and then a few dozen trips with no moose... someone looks at my pictures, sees moose, and assumes that I see them all the time.

Good one!For me fake is only when someone does a CG to recreate the whole scene ... but when someone has gone through countless hours of preparation and hardship to recreate a scene which we could otherwise not see on our own, that is not fake ... that is skill ... it is not necessary for the maker to tell everyone that he has done it in the zoo, because the important thing is the story, not how he got that story ... calling it fake takes away the person's skill and dedication to his/her craft.

And also: How would you e.g. ever get shots of a newborn polar bear (like in the article)? Better build a artificial den/nest with cameras in place then intrude an exicting one with te possibility of scaring the mother away (and let the new born die ...).

I think you can better make a 'set' and invite nature in, then intrude their own habitat. Animals only come in when they want to, if not ... bad luck for the film maker but nature stays undisturbed.